He’s right in my opinion.
The issue is that under the nuclear sharing agreement, Germany has to provide the bomber jets.
As part of nuclear sharing, the participating countries carry out consultations and make common decisions on nuclear-weapons policy, training, and deployment, and maintain technical equipment (notably nuclear-capable aircraft) that is required for the delivery of nuclear weapons.
To be nuclear-capable, an aircraft needs to be certified by the US in this case since they provide the nuclear weapons. In the past, this was done for the Tornado; that one however is being phased out due to age.
So the options are:
- get out of the nuclear sharing agreement. I don’t think that’s currently a feasible option for Germany.
- Certify a European aircraft. There’s no guarantee that a verification will be successful, but what will be guaranteed is that all design documents are to be provided to the certification body. I don’t think Europe is currently willing to reveal all their know-how in that domain to the US. Apart from that, I’m not aware of a current generation bomber jet, only fighters, but I don’t really care about that topic so maybe one exists.
- Buy a certified US aircraft
So yeah he’s correct in that this doesn’t increase dependence on the US, the dependence stems from the nuclear sharing agreement itself, not this purchase.
Yes, but also No.
Good post.
- Hybrid fleet with some F35 and some other jet fighters (Rafale or Gripen or Tornado). Greece does it. Ukraine does it. Canada may very well do it.
WDYM? Germany will operate a hybrid fleet, with the majority of the fighter jets being Eurofighters, and the F-35s being used for nuclear sharing. At least that is my understanding. 3. is a hybrid fleet option
My bad indeed! I thought they were going full F35.
Option 1 + expansion of French nuclear umbrella.
That is probably an option in about 5 years, if at all.
Technically the F-35 is a fighter jet as well and it would be possible to modify a Eurofighter.
However they have to be modified by the US. There are a lot of safeties build into any nuclear armed plane, to make sure the nuke explodes if and only if it is supposed to explode. So no accidents and no Germany just takes a US nuke and just bombs somebody. Hence you need safeties build into the plane to make sure that does not happen.
He’s right, they were already fully dependent before the deal.
True, but if you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging.
“We are allies, after all, and we intend to remain so. And that includes developing and procuring equipment together,” Pistorius said, adding that there were mutual interests.
Name one case where the US acted like an ally.
2+4 Treaty was somewhat opposed by France and the UK. The US helped out a lot with that. Also with dealing with the Soviets. That obviously lead to a united Germany, which is massive.
More recently the US gave extremely useful information about Russia invading Ukraine soon, which turned out to be accurate. They also helped out initially with arming Ukraine.
More recently the US gave extremely useful information about Russia invading Ukraine soon
Merkel said about Minsk II that it was made to buy Ukraine time. They knew the war was coming.
The only one I can think of is when USA helped prevent genocide in Yugoslavia.
Every other situation it has been allies to USA helping them with their foreign political goals.
USA even called for article 5 on Afghanistan, the only time it has ever been used in NATO!
Many think USA is protecting Europe, but it has been way more the other way around.Well, I mean the theory always has been, that Europe helps in the U.S.'s “small adventures” (i.e. shaping the world to their interests), but the U.S. would help out, if Europe is directly threatened.
But I wouldn’t be to sure the deal would still hold these days, when push comes to shove.
Trump has zero respect for international agreements, so there are very good reasons to doubt Trump would honor the NATO pact.
Bullshit
Letting Trump in through back doors and paying him for privilege
